Background: Behcet's disease (BD) is a systemic vasculitis accompanied by oral-genital ulcers, ocular, cerebral, and gastrointestinal disorders. The aim of this study was to evaluate BD articles published between 2010–2019 bibliometrically and to provide up-to-date data. A secondary aim was to present a different perspective using altmetric assessments. Methods: This bibliometric and altmetric research was performed with data obtained from the Web of Science database. The key terms “Behcet's disease,” “Behcet's syndrome,” and “Behcet” were used for listing the articles. The number of articles, citation data, and active countries were determined. Trend and correlation analyses were performed. Altmetric attention scores (AASs) and Mendeley readers count (MRC) of the articles were acquired for the altmetric evaluations. Results: A total of 5,201 articles were listed. After the exclusion criteria, a total of 2,163 articles were obtained for further analysis. A significant and increasing trend was detected in the number of articles from 2010 to 2019 (P < 0.001). Turkey (28.24%), China (9.57%), South Korea (9.20%), Japan (6.38%), and Italy (5.64%) were the five most productive countries. France, the United States and, the United Kingdom were the top three countries in respect of the average number of citations per article. A weak significant correlation was detected between the number of citations and AAS (P < 0.001). The number of citations was significantly and strongly correlated with the MRC (P< 0.001). Conclusion An increasing trend was found in BD research productivity. Although the Silk Road countries were prominent in the number of articles, a similar ranking was not valid for the average number of citations per article.

Background: Behcet's disease (BD) is a systemic vasculitis accompanied by oral-genital ulcers, ocular, cerebral, and gastrointestinal disorders. The aim of this study was to evaluate BD articles published between 2010–2019 bibliometrically and to provide up-to-date data. A secondary aim was to present a different perspective using altmetric assessments. Methods: This bibliometric and altmetric research was performed with data obtained from the Web of Science database. The key terms “Behcet's disease,” “Behcet's syndrome,” and “Behcet” were used for listing the articles. The number of articles, citation data, and active countries were determined. Trend and correlation analyses were performed. Altmetric attention scores (AASs) and Mendeley readers count (MRC) of the articles were acquired for the altmetric evaluations. Results: A total of 5,201 articles were listed. After the exclusion criteria, a total of 2,163 articles were obtained for further analysis. A significant and increasing trend was detected in the number of articles from 2010 to 2019 (P < 0.001). Turkey (28.24%), China (9.57%), South Korea (9.20%), Japan (6.38%), and Italy (5.64%) were the five most productive countries. France, the United States and, the United Kingdom were the top three countries in respect of the average number of citations per article. A weak significant correlation was detected between the number of citations and AAS (P < 0.001). The number of citations was significantly and strongly correlated with the MRC (P< 0.001). Conclusion An increasing trend was found in BD research productivity. Although the Silk Road countries were prominent in the number of articles, a similar ranking was not valid for the average number of citations per article.

Background: Retraction is a process for correcting the literature and provides a barrier to the dissemination of publications that include major faults or false-misleading data. The aim of this study was to examine the characteristics of retracted articles in the biomedical field sourced from Turkey. Methods: In this descriptive cross-sectional study, all retracted publications from Turkey on PubMed were listed without date restriction. Data covering the article title, authors, publication date, retraction date, time between publication and retraction dates (in months), journal, article type, country of the corresponding author, peer review timeline (in days), reason for retraction, and subject area of the retracted item were recorded. Citation data were obtained using the Scopus database. The altmetric attention scores of the articles were recorded. Results: A total of 102 articles were listed and after the implementation of exclusion criteria, 86 articles were included for analysis. The first retracted article was published in 2000 (n = 1), while the most retracted articles were published in 2020 (n = 11). The median time lag between publication and retraction was 10.33 (0.73–144.06) months. The main factors causing retraction were plagiarism (n = 23), duplication (n = 22) and error (n = 17). The total number of citations was 695. A total of 224 citations were in the pre-retraction period and 471 citations were in the post-retraction period. Conclusion The retracted article counts showed a rising trend over the years. The leading causes of retraction for articles from Turkey were plagiarism, duplication, and error. It was found that the articles continued to be cited after the retraction. Researchers in Turkey should be educated on retraction, particularly plagiarism and duplication. Strategies should be developed to prevent articles from being cited after retraction.

Background: Retraction is a correction process for the scientific literature that acts as a barrier to the dissemination of articles that have serious faults or misleading data. The purpose of this study was to investigate the characteristics of retracted papers from Kazakhstan. Methods: Utilizing data from Retraction Watch, this cross-sectional descriptive analysis documented all retracted papers from Kazakhstan without regard to publication dates. The following data were recorded: publication title, DOI number, number of authors, publication date, retraction date, source, publication type, subject category of publication, collaborating country, and retraction reason. Source index status, Scopus citation value, and Altmetric Attention Score were obtained. Results: Following the search, a total of 92 retracted papers were discovered. One duplicate article was excluded, leaving 91 publications for analysis. Most articles were retracted in 2022 (n = 22) and 2018 (n = 19). Among the identified publications, 49 (53.9%) were research articles, 39 (42.9%) were conference papers, 2 (2.2%) were review articles, and 1 (1.1%) was a book chapter. Russia (n = 24) and China (n = 5) were the most collaborative countries in the retracted publications. Fake-biased peer review (n = 38), plagiarism (n = 25), and duplication (n = 14) were the leading causes of retraction. Conclusion The vast majority of the publications were research articles and conference papers.Russia was the leading collaborative country. The most prominent retraction reasons were fakebiased peer review, plagiarism, and duplication. Efforts to raise researchers’ understanding of the grounds for retraction and ethical research techniques are required in Kazakhstan.

Background: Retraction is an essential procedure for correcting scientific literature and informing readers about articles containing significant errors or omissions. Ethical violations are one of the significant triggers of the retraction process. The objective of this study was to evaluate the characteristics of retracted articles in the medical literature due to ethical violations. Methods: The Retraction Watch Database was utilized for this descriptive study. The ‘ethical violations’ and ‘medicine’ options were chosen. The date range was 2010 to 2023. The collected data included the number of authors, the date of publication and retraction, the journal of publication, the indexing status of the journal, the country of the corresponding author, the subject area of the article, and the particular retraction reasons. Results: A total of 177 articles were analyzed. The most retractions were detected in 2019 (n = 29) and 2012 (n = 28). The median time period between the articles’ first publication date and the date of retraction was 647 (0–4,295) days. The leading countries were China (n = 47), USA (n = 25), South Korea (n = 23), Iran (n = 14), and India (n = 12). The main causes of retraction were ethical approval issues (n = 65), data-related concerns (n = 51), informed consent issues (n = 45), and fake-biased peer review (n = 30). Conclusion Unethical behavior is one of the most significant obstacles to scientific advancement. Obtaining appropriate ethics committee approvals and informed consent forms is crucial in ensuring the ethical conduct of medical research. It is the responsibility of journal editors to ensure that raw data is controlled and peer review processes are conducted effectively. It is essential to educate young researchers on unethical practices and the negative outcomes that may result from them.

Background: Central Asian countries (CACs) are less visible in the global scientific environment, despite their solid scientific nature. The current article aimed to assess the publication productivity of CACs since 1996 using SCImago Journal & Country Rank (SJR). Methods: This is a descriptive study. The SJR portal was used to retrieve the data. The Country Rankings section was viewed, and the Asiatic Region option was chosen. The most active countries and CACs’ number of documents, number of citable documents, citations, self-citations, citations per document, and H index data were obtained. The number of documents from CACs was recorded annually to determine the ten-year trend (2012 to 2021).Scientific categories in which CACs were prolific were defined. Results: Between 1996 and 2021, 18,336,647 documents with Asian region origins were produced. The most active countries in the Asiatic Region were China (1st), Japan (2nd), India (3rd), South Korea (4th), and Taiwan (5th). According to the number of documents, Kazakhstan ranked 15th, Uzbekistan 19th, Kyrgyzstan 24th, Tajikistan 27th, and Turkmenistan 31st among the Asiatic Region countries. The total number of documents originating from CACS, which was 1,616 in 2012, increased to 9,780 in 2021 with an upward trend (6.05 fold increase). Conclusion Despite a rising number of articles, CACs are not at the forefront of scientific productivity in the Asiatic Region. Kazakhstan is the leading country in scientific productivity among CACs. Nonetheless, the increasing quantity of articles from CACs over the last ten years suggests that these countries have the infrastructure and human resources to enhance scientific research and production.

The concept of research integrity (RI) refers to a set of moral and ethical standards that serve as the foundation for the execution of research activities. Integrity in research is the incorporation of principles of honesty, transparency, and respect for ethical standards and norms throughout all stages of the research endeavor, encompassing study design, data collecting, analysis, reporting, and publishing. The preservation of RI is of utmost importance to uphold the credibility and amplify the influence of scientific research while also preventing and dealing with instances of scientific misconduct. Researchers, institutions, journals, and readers share responsibilities for preserving RI. Researchers must adhere to the highest ethical standards. Institutions have a role in establishing an atmosphere that supports integrity ideals while also providing useful guidance, instruction, and assistance to researchers. Editors and reviewers act as protectors, upholding quality and ethical standards in the dissemination of research results through publishing. Readers play a key role in the detection and reporting of fraudulent activity by critically evaluating content. The struggle against scientific misconduct has multiple dimensions and is continuous. It requires a collaborative effort and adherence to the principles of honesty, transparency, and rigorous science. By supporting a culture of RI, the scientific community may preserve its core principles and continue to contribute appropriately to society’s well-being. It not only aids present research but also lays the foundation for future scientific advancements.

Background: Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) is a medical intervention employed to provide life-sustaining support for patients. YouTube is a dynamic and widely utilized platform for distributing health-related information. The aim of this study was to evaluate ECMO-related videos on YouTube and assess the frequency of misleading information in the accumulation of ECMO videos. Methods: On September 17, 2024, an in-depth examination on YouTube was conducted using search phrases “Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation” and “ECMO treatment.”The study included 55 selected videos. Video parameters and sources were analyzed.Content assessments were conducted utilizing the Global Quality Scale (GQS), the modified DISCERN instrument, the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) Benchmark Criteria, and the Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool for Audio/Visual Materials (PEMAT-A/V).The authors conducted comparisons among quality groups. Results: Among the 55 videos analyzed, 30.9% (n = 17) were categorized as low quality, 21.8% (n = 12) as intermediate quality, and 47.3% (n = 26) as high quality. Physicians (75%) provided the most high-quality videos. News outlets (83.3%) provided the most low-quality videos. No statistically significant difference was observed between quality groups in daily views, likes, and comments (P > 0.05). Significant correlations were identified between video duration and GQS (r = 0.585), modified DISCERN questionnaire (r = 0.557), JAMA Benchmark Criteria (r = 0.511), PEMAT-A/V Understandability (r = 0.530), and PEMAT-A/V Actionability scores (r = 0.433) (P < 0.001 for all correlation analyses). Conclusion There is a wide variety in the quality of YouTube ECMO videos. Although YouTube content created by physicians is more likely to provide accurate and beneficial information, substandard videos present a significant public health threat by disseminating misinformation.The critical role of quality control methods on social media platforms in ensuring the accurate and high-quality transmission of health-related information is readily evident.

Background: This survey examined healthcare professionals' knowledge, views, and perceptions of the responsibilities and functions of Research Ethics Committees (RECs).The study aimed to analyze ethical principles and operational issues faced by RECs and guide researchers, journal editors, and publishers on publication ethics notes. Methods: A cross-sectional survey was conducted using the SurveyMonkey.com platform to assess healthcare professionals' knowledge, views, and practices concerning RECs' responsibilities, functions, and roles. The survey focused on REC definitions, functions, research types that require REC approval, and research protocols’ evaluation time frames.It also reflected on ethics considerations and REC adaptations during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, REC member qualifications, evaluation periods, and additional challenges confronting RECs. Convenience sampling was adopted, and the survey was distributed via social media platforms. Results: The survey was based on an analysis of questionnaires filled by 182 responders (104 females [57.1%] and 76 males [41.8%]), with a median age of 36. The survey respondents were from 28 different countries. The top three countries with most responders were Kazakhstan (n = 83), Türkiye (n = 33) and Poland (n = 10). Most participants (n = 128, 70.3%) were familiar with the definition of RECs and recognized the importance of REC approval for clinical trials and interventional research. Research study protocols should be submitted for REC evaluation and approval during the planning phase, according to 145 responders (79.7%). Participants emphasized the significance of formal ethics training for REC members.The involvement in research approved by RECs was also viewed as an important precondition for membering RECs. Participants suggested online submissions (n = 127, 69.8%), virtual meetings (n = 99, 54.4%), and fast evaluation schedules for low-risk research protocols (n = 77, 42.3%) during the COVID-19 pandemic. Conclusion Healthcare professionals comprehend the basics of REC duties and responsibilities. However, improvements in the consistency and efficiency of ethics evaluations are still warranted. The COVID-19 pandemic stressed the importance of adaptive REC procedures; researchers, editors, and publishers learned a vitally important lesson. More efforts are warranted to increase REC member training, simplify administrative procedures, and define standard operating procedures in times of crisis. Continuous progress in these areas will allow RECs to maintain high ethical standards while supporting productive research. Editors and publishers will greatly benefit from related advances in research ethics considerations.